Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-07-15T03:51:09Z

USArule:

To save humanity, we should focus on the worst first. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

1) hunger 2) preventable disease 3) unsolved diseases like AIDS 4) natural resources 5) preventing war 6) poverty ..... 19) global warming 20) asteroid striking Earth.

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was [[Jesus]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::Good one - ''touché''. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I did. Jesus is God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT) (See details on talk page - [[User:Human|Human]])

1) totalitarianism/world government 2) global warming 3) pandemic risk 4) US national debt 5) genocide [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) terrorism 2) Communism 3) genocide 4) Hunger/Poverty (not the government's job however)... 19) US national debt ..... 267) natural resources ..... 1,532) asteroid striking earth ..... 7,854,238) alien invasion 7,854,239) global warming. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) preventing gay marriage 2) preventing abortion 3) putting the 10 commandments in schools 4) convincing the global scientific community that evolution is false 5) defeating terrorism indefinitely and continuously 6) stopping liberals 7) keeping guns 8) stopping socialised health care 9) preventing environmentalist lies from damaging America's economy 10) making the speed of light more scriptural 11) abolishing public education 12) promoting conservative facts

1) Rejection of God. Solve that one and the rest would fall into place. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1)Prevent global warming, by finding alternative (read:wind, solar, hydrogen, and, if it ever appears, fusion) sources of energy.
2) Stop, and reverse, the deleterious effect that free trade and international repression has had on developing African and Asia countries.
3) Enshrine the [[UDHR]], the effective culmination of 12,000 years of thought from various religions and philosophies, into national law throughout the world. Give the UN a credible way of enforcing this which is independent of [[Russia|various]] [[USA|national]] [[China|interests]]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::: Yikes, add mind control--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty (people with money tend not to go hungry). 2) Wider, deeper democracy in all countries. 3) Preventable disease. 4) Alternative energy sources. 5) Be generally nicer to each other. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 10:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

(obscenity removed - keep it clean and comply with the [[rules]])--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty 2) Democracy by choice, not war, in all countries. 3) Cure as many diseases as possible 4) Alternative energy sources [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Establish a democratic world government with a global military 2) Eliminate poverty (this should take care of preventable diseases as well) 3) Stabilize world population 4) Nuclear fusion (this should take care of the energy problem and pollution) 5) Be generally nicer to each other 6) Securing Earth against alien invasions or asteroids. [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

(I moved a lengthy discussion to the talk page under " Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc.", with the permission of the two principal discussers [[User:Human|Human]] 17:25, 13 May 2007 (EDT))

sence somepeople in here are a complete moron(not middle man) but face america is not the sole country on earth so lest try to think without being stuck up ---holes and be intelligent, world problem, weve got a hole host of them: over population, deforistation, desertfication, poverty, starvation, in some areas lack of population,catching up to technology, global warming, industrilization, diseases both treatable and untreatable, exploitation ofhuman rites, corrupt government( our rite now is a good example),genoicide. We do not and should not look to solve problems to support some sort of an agenda or to do it to bennifit our counrty, we do it to help them, to help the world so no, communism is not something we need to look to solve, not gay marriage either, you might find it wrong but maybe not others in the world, we do not look to help to support a party or ideals may they be libreal or conservative, and we do not look to help to support or recrute for a religion, there are many people on this earth and it is wrong for you to look to change them ,we look to help beacause we should !ok now we as america cant take that all on, it is quite a chalange, we need to work together as a world to fix these problems, attch wear they are needed like darfur. work with other leading nations to solve problems pool our money together. however america is in a unique poistion, we are 1 of the richest and the only remaining super power, we should always look to help, and when i say help not interfere with other countries polotics, if a country is turning communist, so be it america says it supports free will, dose it not? if its the will of the majority of the people why not have it so think when going to say help, think before you speek.

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-07-12T02:27:37Z

USArule:

{{debate-science}}

== Contrary evidence ==
You all might want to take a look at [http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804 this article], which offers some highly embarrassing details on [[Albert Gore, Jr.]]'s public-policy pronouncements, his refusal to do that which he asks others to do, and other, even grosser [[Sin#Environmentalism|sin]]s against the environment.

# A number of eminent scientists are now claiming--and for publication in ''The New York Times'', no less--that Gore's reports of the planet's imminent demise from heatstroke are greatly exaggerated.
# The article reiterates the accusation of [[special pleading]] against Gore--that while his Academy Award winning film asks, "Are you prepared to change your lifestyle?", Gore has not shown himself willing to change his own. Futhermore, it gives this detail on those "carbon offsets":<blockquote>The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.--one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore's company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."</blockquote>
# And now ''The Tennesseean'' (Nashville) reports that Gore has a zinc mine that has a history of polluting a local river.

Point number one above is the most important point, though points two and three show that former Senator Gore is not the most qualified authority on the subject.

I have said before that this debate is an adversarial proceeding, with Gore advocating that everyone else fundamentally change the way they (or I should say, we) live because the planet is somehow in peril and that peril is somehow our fault. But any lawyer (and he is one) knows that when a witness tells a lie on a material point, everything else he says is automatically suspect without independent corroboration. Well, special pleading might not be lying, but that zinc-mine affair shows him guilty of monumental dissemblance, which is close. So my advice to the global-warming alarmists is to find another chief advocate, and try to content with Point One.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''The above points about Al Gore have nothing to do with global warming, and perhaps should be moved to some anti-Al Gore page.''[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
What information do we have that we can prove? We have statistics that can’t be denied, but when the statistics were presented, were they manipulated to serve the speaker’s cause. Could they be interpreted in different ways? As Evan Esar said, “Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions,” and as Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.” Also, there has not been a control experiment (not possible with today’s technology) done to see whether any assumptions that have been made are true or even possible. So how can anyone (especially Al Gore) say so confidently that humans have caused any change in the climate when there are many other possibilities? He or she cannot. Besides, this would not be the first time a politician (like Al Gore) has been terribly confused or lying through their teeth to increase the disapproval rate of a political enemy (or any other way this debate may be helping Gore).

Al Gore is giving the worse case scenario on many of the catastrophes (Al Gore mistook the oceans rising 20 feet for 23 inches, United Nations estimates for the result of the melting of the polar ice caps, or was that just more propaganda), that of course, “will happen” if the world population does not act. Of course his threatening words come from scientists who “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence.” (Al Gore) So in other words scientists “don’t know… They just don’t know.” (Al Gore) No one can base the truth or much of an opinion on “They just don’t know.”

Mr. Gore’s website for his movie ''An Inconvenient Truth'' presents very little scientifically proven fact. In fact, under the link "The Science," [(http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/)] Al Gore only says that carbon dioxide naturally keeps our planet warm and he tries to convince his readers that his assumptions that the greenhouse gases are actually affecting the climate in a negative way by saying, “The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence,” Have you ever heard of bribing, blackmailing, or scaring scientists by making them think they will lose their grant money if they disagree with Gore (I am not saying Gore is bribing or blackmailing, anonymous people could be). Instilling fear worked in Hitler’s regime (I am not making a comparison just an observation). Then he continues on and on about what he thinks will happen if global warming is not stopped (considering the innumerable mistakes he has already made in this argument there is not much science in that). What he does not say is that scientists know (they do not know) that global warming “is the result of our activities,” (Al Gore's website for his movie) or even exists. He fails to address other possibilities for the causes of catastrophes that he “believes” will occur, is occuring, or has occured as a result of global warming (droughts, hurricanes, etcetera). Like why is global warming the culprit for some natural disaster instead of… For example, the Dust Bowl in the U.S. was caused by poor farming practices, which made the soil too loose, and drought set in. It was not global warming, or anything else.

Then there is the other side of the argument. They completely deny that it is getting warmer; yet, they agree that the average temperature has gone up one degree. It could be a natural occurrence. There is not any evidence that means we should forget about this possibility.

So what side do I support? Each side has its faults (I have found more faults on the global warming is real side), but I cannot support the side that says global warming has been started by human practices. I do not support global warming mainly because there is not enough evidence; just one group’s assumptions. So I want more evidence (not statistics) in order for me to be concerned about and support the fight against global warming.--[[User:Shna|Shna]] 19:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[Nationao Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Then your position is a total [[non sequitur]]. How can you say the globe is warming when your own thermometer tells you that it's still cold? How can you say that the globe is warming when ''three conferences'' called by global-warming alarmists had to be canceled because of snow and ice? How can you say that the globe is warming, when a North Pole expedition, looking for "evidence," had to turn back because one of the expeditionaries came down with frostbite? This whole debate gets more ridiculous with every passing week.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: You assert that you know something about logic, so I think that you are aware that this whole argument is based on the logical fallacies of [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] and [[misleading vividness]]. Climate change does not mean that people are going to immediately stop getting frostbite when they make expeditions to the North Pole.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::By that same token, then, no one has shown that tomorrow the forests of Southern [[California]] are going to go up in smoke, or that [[San Francisco]] is going to slip into the sea, or that [[Key West]] is going to wash away. And before you say that "nobody ever said that," I say that they have. One point three degrees. ''So what???'' Again, it's still not as warm as some other winters we used to have in [[New Jersey]]. We got unprecedented snow in 1993-4, and before then, we hardly ever had three feet of snow to fall in one day. Global warming? Hah! Global ''cooling'' was more like it.
:::::::::And another thing: we haven't discussed a little item such as the finding of polar ice melts on [[Mars]]. Now are you going to claim that we are somehow fouling up the climate on Mars, too?
:::::::::All that's happening is that the sunspots are a little more active. This, too, shall pass. And when it does, you can ice yourself down again, just as you were used to doing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::: We're almost off the page at this point, so this'll be my last response, and you can have the final word.
::::::::::1.3 degrees (by the way, are you refering to how much it has changed so far, or projected change?) may not sound like much, but it does have a big effect. Example: during the last major ice age, when glaciers covered as far south as Ohio, the temperature was only 9 degrees different than it is now. You can cite cases of people getting frostbite at the North Pole and all sorts of other [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] logical fallacies, but you still haven't attempted to come up with a coherent argument disputing the basic premises of the case for climate change: 1. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide. 2. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 16:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Unfortunately, we are at the sunspot minimum of the cycle rather than the maximum. [http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html] and [http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm] for more on the sunspot count. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx]? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::He owns this Global Initiatives outfit where he buys his "carbon offsets," like planting trees. That's what I mean by buying carbon offsets from himself.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: So, he pays his energy bill to a company that he doesn't own, then spends additional money to offset his carbon output by creating wind and solar power and planting trees. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you accept any obligation to disprove global warming? A theory has been put forward and the only way to defeat a theory is to show, logically, where it is in error. Your statement that global warming is not a fact is just that, a statement. If you cannot offer a viable reason for your statement, why should I or anyone else accept your assertion? Certainly not because of your conspiracy paranoia. [[jwcddd]]

:For one simple reason: the [[global warming]] debate is at heart an adversarial proceeding. It might as well be titled ''People of the Temple of Gaia versus All Those Who Consume More than the Allowed Amount of Energy Per Person Per Day.'' [[Albert Gore, Jr]], of course, appears as the lead counsel for the plaintiff--and a most unworthy counsel he is, because he consumes twenty times as much energy as any of the rest of us.

:In any event, Gore and his co-counsels, including people like you, are trying to argue that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:''If that be shown'', then and only then does the burden-of-proof shift to the defendant--and here on Conservapedia, I seem to be the chief advocate for the defense in this particular forum.

:Now as any lawyer knows, in order to win a judgment based on ''res ipsa loquitur'', the plaintiff must establish that the thing causing the alleged damage ''lies under the exclusive control of the defendant''.

:So all I really have to show is that mankind ''does not'' have exclusive control. But more than that, the ''plaintiff'' must show that mankind ''does'' have that exclusive control.

:You can't show that. You can't even show significant damage--but even if you could, ''you cannot establish an exclusivity of control'' by man. Not when the planet [[Mars]] is warming up in just as great a proportion as, if not a greater proportion than, is the earth.

:I have heard of a lot of "climatological models." I have not heard of one yet that has been shown to be accurate.

:Consider what a judgment for the plaintiff means. It means that the government ought to forbid people to drive an automobile without first getting the equivalent of a Certificate of Need for building a hospital. It means that the government ought to forbid people to live in single-family residences without a similar CON, and require everyone to live in dormitory-style "apartments." It means that all transportation will be public transportation--except for Al Gore's limousine. It means that everyone's electricity budget gets cut back ninety percent. It means no more individual computers, TV sets, or any other kind of "gadget."

:I can see it now: Al Gore living large in the master's house and riding around in his limousine, and [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] as the dedicated forman, living as simply as everyone else, enforcing the Gore rules as ruthlessly as is required, and never questioning their necessity, or the logical holes in them.

:Given such stakes as that, the defense has the right to insist on a very high burden of proof. Indeed the defense "moves" that the burden be set to the highest of standards: ''beyond a reasonable doubt.''

:Of course, I maintain that the plaintiff cannot even satisfy a burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. It certainly cannot satisfy the exclusive-control test required for a ''res ipsa loquitur'' verdict.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's quite an answer. But of course you have once again avoided the issue. Global warming is not a court case. It is a scientific proposition which can only be found wanting through a scientific process. Your hang-ups with Gore and Mars, have no bearing on the debate, and one would assume that your reason for not addressing the issue directly reflects your inability to do so.

Models are presented to demonstrate possibilities, as proof-of-concept representations. No model has ever been 100% correct because there are no crystal balls in real life. However, models are based on fundamental research; not mysticism or magic. These same research fundamentals gave society the Germ Theory of Medicine, home computers, and DVD's. Models are why drug companies do trials before their products go to market; and models are used to make buildings safer, and airplanes able to meet performance criteria. So unless you can dismiss out of hand, the methodology that affords progress for the health and welfare of humanity, not to mention the conveniences of civilization, you still have not given anyone reading this page a reason to doubt that global warming is a fact. [[jwcddd]]

:And you show, as is usual for liberals, that you are unable to put yourself in another person's place. I have raised another issue that you consistently ignore: that you have not yet proved that mankind is ''exclusively at fault'' in your so-called process.

:Your argument assumes that [[global warming]] is established with the same rigor and dispassionate observation with which [[Antoine Lavoisier]] disproved the phlogiston theory of combustion, or [[Benjamin Franklin]] determined that lightning was a physical phenomenon and not exclusively a mystical one. Your argument further conflates invention with the prescription of public policy.

:I say again: ''your theory requires a public policy tantamount to punishment of those who live larger than yourself or higher than some threhold that you and your co-ideologues define.'' And because of that, it is for ''you'' to show that global warming ''is'' a fact, and that mankind is ''at tortious fault'' for same.

:You are alleging the tort of negligence. Four things are required to establish negligence:

:# Duty of care.
:# Dereliction of duty.
:# Injury.
:# Damage.

:Thus far, you have not shown dereliction of duty. You have not even shown injury, much less damage--but you have definitely not shown dereliction of duty.

:I could simply observe that your arrogance, in thinking that you are my judge, amazes me, and let it go at that. But I further observe that neither you nor anyone on your side has begun to think the matter through.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terry for your four points above
::#The duty of care is ours by default, human race. We are the only ones advance enough to cause change on a global scale.
::#Our dereliction of duty is evident in that we avoid taking responsibility for our duty, keep polluting even though we know it is bad by claiming that there are other factors as well that add to the pollution.
::#Displacement of species of animals, by changing the climate many animal species are moving to newer areas. This is causing an increase in invasive species and choking out native species.
::#The destruction of ice shelves, increased destruction of forests and the accelerated extinction of species. Seems to be quiet a bit of damage.

What I can not understand is why so many people are so resistant to policies and guidelines that promote a healthy environment? Are we that greedy that we are willing to continue to pollute and cause destruction of nature?

I saw Jerry Falwell on TV last night reporting against global warming. How can any minister encourage the continuation of wasteful actions in regards to environmental resources? I would think that anyone who is a man of god would cherish the creation of god and not work to destroy it. Perhaps we should take some lessons from the Amish.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Terry, I think you and yours are the ones who have not thought things through. Your arguments are based on the assumed full culpability of man for global warming. No one has made such an assertion. What has been stated in virtually every study on the evolution of the warming phenomenon is that carbon loading of the atmosphere, which has accelerated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, tends to exacerbate and subsequently, accelerate the warming trend.
Now you as a human may not wish to accept responsibility, and that’s fine; but you as an intellectual should appreciate the logic in making attempts at minimizing the over-all affects of climate change. You worry about how your life would be disrupted if the economic base of the world had to adjust to offset warming when, in fact, the logical apprehension should be caused by the possibility that the warming is a fact and that, if nothing is done, a major portion of the global economy might collapse. Now that’s not an idle joke. Consider that nearly one third of the human race lives within a meter or two of sea level; that most third world agricultural areas are adjacent to or within close proximity to rivers and streams. How much disruption to the human endeavor would result from a sea level rise of just half a meter?

You like to call the supporters of the warming theory alarmists. Well maybe they are; but you could just as easily be called someone who wants to bury his head in the sand. You posit that warming theory is wrong for the very reasons you should be embracing attempts to prove it and to address its issues; the affect it will have on your life, your society, and your well being. Of course, I mean that rhetorically because the worse will not happen in our, or at least in my, lifetime; but I would suspect that you are not so selfish as to wish to jeopardize the health and well being of your progeny.
Consider the effect the displacement of a billion people might have on the world economy. The wars that will be fought for shrinking resources such as water and food.

Now I don’t have to prove that to you or anyone else, the simple possibility that it may occur should be motivation enough to ask “what can be done to prevent it from happening?”

You can engage in all the smoke screening you like. If you seriously think that global warming will go away, or not occur because you don’t like Gore; or because you think that scientists are just advancing the theory to enjoy financial gain; or because it may in part, be caused by increased solar activity, then you are not as intelligent as you would have people believe. You say the proponents try to assert that res ipsa loguitur –the thing speaks for itself. In fact, that is your argument, just coming from the opposite direction.

There you have it, Terry. You can answer if you want, you can continue to cower behind your Latin clichés, and you can continue to convince yourself that you have nothing to fear. You can have the last word, TerryH. You are no longer worth my time here. You accuse me of not having thought things through; I would assert that you have thought of nothing but denial. I have no respect for people who are incapable of logical thought; who engage not in unbiased science, but rather unscientific bias. [[jwcddd]] 21:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:What you stand on is not science at all, but grant-moneyed political pabulum and [[propaganda]]. ''I'' have no respect for them who accuse me falsely--not merely of "denial," as you put it, but of an intentional tort against the environment. For that is the accusation you continue to make.
:As for granting me the last word--is that a promise?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally am very skeptical of the current "global warming" frenzy. It just doesn't appear to have much solidity to it, and even if the earth is warming, the environment is highly self-regulatory. Warmer temperatures mean increased evaporation. Now it is true that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but as it condense in the atmosphere, it forms clouds, which block the suns rays, dim the surface, and effectively lower temperatures. I personally believe that the earth might warm, but only to a certain point, at which natural systems would work to cool it again. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would certainly agree with the above. Add to it that if carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, then vegetation will take it up--along with the increased rains.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I guess Terry and Aardvark that you both do not understand chemistry and radiation. Yes more water vapor means more clouds, however clouds do not block the right wavelength of light. You can receive sunburn on a cloudy day, UV penetrates many cloud masses and reaches the earth. When the light is reflected back to space however its energy is reduced and is stopped from escaping the atmosphere by the clouds thus causing convection in the atmosphere. If you do not believe what I just stated then think about Venus, the atmosphere is cloud covered all of the time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::On to water vapor. Water vapor has high heat absorption and is very effective at retaining heat. So the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere the higher the temp. Since the higher the temp the atmosphere has a greater ability to gain more water vapor. This cycle continues till equilibrium is established however by our adding of other green house gasses this equilibrium is continually offset.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aardvark, lets put this in perspective about the natural systems cooling the earth again. Paper trash breaks down over time in dirt and weather. But the more paper trash we add to the system the longer it takes to break down. If we continue to add over what the system can break down normally we end up with a build up. Same thing with the Green house gasses. The Atmosphere can breakdown certain gasses however with the continual addition of gasses we end up overwhelming the reactions that break the gasses up. If you exceed the limits of the natural system it will not work.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::TerryH, additional CO2 and deforestation renders your statement moot. We have been exceeding what vegetation can keep up with for years, if not then the hole in the Ozone would have closed or remained unchanged. We are not seeding new rainforests at the rate we are cutting them down, nor are we replacing the vegetation that we remove when expanding our living areas. Come now think about what you just said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I am a scientist who has done a study which shows that mankind is incapable of determining whether there will be global warming. My findings, the summary of which follows, knocks the foundation out from under those who predict warming.

Essentially, it shows that the warming "experts" are unable to accurately predict tomorrow's temperature. I compared predictions of the National Weather Service to actual outcomes for next-day temps, and found that the "experts" were right only 11% of the time. I also found that if, instead of using their education, experience, software, supercomputers, and satellites, they had merely said tomorrow's temp will be the same as today's, they would have been right 16% of the time-- a considerable improvement.

The conclusion of my study is that, since the "experts" can only predict tomorrow's temp with 11% accuracy, they can't predict the temp 36,000 times farther out into the future.

My study isn't published yet, so sorry, I can't provide a reference. Earl100.

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe you have a skewed understanding of how science works. What you have proposed with the scientist fudging their data would be one of the largest conspiracies in our time. A scientist's livelihood is 100% based on their ability to accurately report and research. If one is found fudging they would lose everything, the science world is very unforgiving and hard to compete within. Grant money is not just given out, a scientist's credentials and background research are judged for awarding of grants.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::While the image may be from Wikipedia, it is simply a graph of data from various weather sources and compiled into one chart. The numbers themselves are from a 10 peer reviewed papers and not something that is part of Wikipedia. You could go look up those papers and chart it yourself and come up with the exact same graph. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

:[[Global warming]] is evident, but it's neither man's fault nor any cause for alarm. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. And [[solar variation]] drives temperature. A couple of degrees of additional warmth will be good for crops and will reduce [[extreme weather]] events like [[hurricane]]s. So there's no need to stop anything. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh... Better crops? Thats nice for you US citicens, but how about in countryes near equator? How about desertification and melting polar ice? And it will reduce hurricanes? Global warming has been alleged to do just the opposite, to create more extreme weather phenomens, like hurricanes. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181]. (And damn those math questions every time i post, need to click several times to get an easy one ;) ) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Have you considered the implications for the US economy as the bread basket moves north to Canada? Or the Pentagon's report on [http://www.gbn.com/GBNDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231&url=%2FUploadDocumentDisplayServlet.srv%3Fid%3D28566 Abrupt Climate Change] and national security? One of the biggest dangers of a warming climate (natural or not) is that the top of the ocean becomes less salty (from melting ice sheets) and some of the ocean currents stop. This in turn makes for more extreme weather - droughts (the pentagon report goes into questions of water disputes between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico, though these would probably be minor compared to those going on in Asia - which would get worse). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

At the risk of upsetting the young earth crowd, we have the Great Permian Extintion Event, as this is 251 million years ago there were no humans on the planet to contribute a thing to gobal warming. This was a rise of about 20 degrees and wiped out most 95% of life on earth at that time. We have had large numbers of ice ages as well most without human intervention and there is very limited proof that at one stage we might have had an ice ball earth. What I am getting to here is that rising vulcanism can in of itself raise gobal tempertures and other factors as well. This is what I am certain of, we are in a warming phase, and I am also certain that we are probably adding somewhat to that problem. Finding more effiecent ways of using our resources is a smart thing for many reasons and this would seem to be another. Finding better ways to reduce carbon dioxide output and sequistering co2 would not seem to be out of the question. The fact that we can use such gases to revitalise our US oil fields seems to be a good use of waste gases that we don't want to emit. Rising sea levels and stonger hurricanes along with crop disruptions are not in our best interests. Remember we are not talking about the end of life but no dominate species has ever survived an extintion event and I for one don't care to bet the future of the human race on us being the 1st. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:17, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

shane- look i think any one who denies global warming is pretty darn stupid, yes it is probably over done a little bit... but come on there is global warming. but ppl say " oh its just a warming period nd how can u be so sure its man kind" and other people say the world use to be tropical..well look those people are just ignorant to begin with does anybody know how they can figure out the temperature of the earth so long ago? i do...they look at rocks and ice...c a particular cold year will have jaged ice or rocks and less oxegen and carbon bubbles traped in it...a warmer year will be flatter smother and have more carbon and oxygen in it. ok now that we have that coverd...why was the earth so tropical long ago? i can answer that two...all the earths continents use to be connnected in a land mass called pangia rite alonmg the equator where it is particular warm and tropical. now for just a heating of the earth. heating of the earth naturaly takes 1000's of years. just like it took the earth 1000's of years to get out of the ice age...but in the last two centuries the earth has gone up in an average of four degress, "OH WOW ONLY FOUR DEGREES" some might say..well in 200 years thats quite a bit, and what has happend in the last 200 years? hmmm the industrial revolution which helped to prduce carbon dioxied... colonization of africa and south america wear they have exploited the forests for the lumber...gee why is that bad? well trees take in carbon dioxide and expell oxygen, but with so many gone there is alot more carbon dioxide reamining here on the earth. hmm this seems a bit onfusing, carbon dioxide... why is that bad, well lets start here, temperature is the measure of the average movment of a molecule, as more heat is added a molecule moves faster and the temperature goes higher, now carbon dioxide has an nice ability to absorb heat better than oxygen or nitrogen so as it absorbs alot more heat it vibrates causing the temeperature to rise, carbon itself is also a great insulator blocking heat from exscaping so the ehat reamains here at earth. are we all clear now? now back to why global warming is man made now as i have said before they can look at ice and rock to determein the temperature of the earth at certian period, well from that it is seen that temperature and carbon dioxide are linked when there is more co2 the temperature is higher. when there is less co2 the temperature is lower( for ppl who dont know science co2 is carbon dioxide) of now what ha sben going on in the last 200 years industrilization and cuttng down trees..so more co2 is being produced then ever before and now there are less trees to get rid of the carbon dioxid so hmmm? what have we learned? more co2 equals higher temp...we re producing more co2 then ever before...we have less trees to get rid of it? why cant ne 1 see that global warming is human made...we can controll it. ppl say it will harm the economy but look at germany a leading industrilized and exporting country and has harsh environmental laws. global warming is having drastic effects. the oceans are rising..and are expected to rise..think eventuly without help they may be no more cape cod or no more netherlands or no more southern lousiana. huricans come from tropical weather and in the last 200 years there have been on average more huricans occuring than ever before. without help england may freeze over, global warming is changing the gulf stream which helps heat england, because we cut down so many trees on average 40 species of animals and plants go extinct a day, some of these animals and plants have great mediacla abilities. we are killing the earth and our selves. why hasnt they us signd the koyoto plan? maybe because we support big buisness and big buisness is afraid that these laws will hurt them. we are the only leading exporting country not to sign it. and we r one of the worlds leading producers of carbon dioxide. can we not see that if we dont act now we will destroy the earth. because of global warming and deforestation we now have desertfication. the deserts are growing. global warming is man made the temperature has grown sence the industrial revolution...and its not rely that its gotten higher, but its the fact that it is changing so faslt that is dangerouse. species cant adapt quick enough and they die off...soon it will be humans who cant adapt quick enough, and we will die too. so look at logic forget religion and just help out, recycle paer and plastic, recycle cans you get money for those, conserve water, dont turn all your lights on in the house, dont drive for a walking distance, dobnt litter if you want your children to grow old and happy and not die due to our faults take action now-shane(shaneifer@yahoo.com)

== OTHER ==

While there may indeed be global warming there is no clear culprit. Even the scientist's
argue over who/what did it...

you know most of the "educated" people of the old times said the earth was flat...but it wasnt.

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:42, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Actually there wasn't and isn't a sailor then or now that would have told you that the earth was flat. Every time you see a ship rising above or sinking below the horizon it gets confirmed. There was that belief but it wasn't nearly as wide spread as we now believe. It was an ancient greek that had the 1st accurate measurement of the globe and that was common knowledge for most mariners, navigators, and mapmakers. Mr. Columbus and Spain's royal court excepted of course. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:22, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Roman Catholic Church

2007-07-12T00:09:26Z

USArule: took out our lord...not everyone is christian

The [[Roman Catholic Church]] is headed by the pope, the bishop of Rome, currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is one of the largest religions in the world, with more than 1 billion adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches the Pope is the successor of [[Saint Peter]]. The term '''Catholic Church''' is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord [[Jesus Christ]]. ''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church, though many Protestants object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term "Catholic". Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==
The original Christian community was founded by esus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. After an initial period of persecution, Christianity was legalized in the fourth century by Constantine I. In 380, Emperor Theodosius I accepted Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. This Catholic Christian Church underwent in 1054 a great schism that divided the Church into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called as the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. The second schism was the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. During the First Vatican Council (1869–1870) and the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) the Catholic Church undertook the most comprehensive reforms. She stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. She also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

The Eastern branches do not have a single umbrella organization. They include the Eastern Orthodox Church and a number of Eastern Catholic Churches. Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern churches recognize each other as part of the universal, or Catholic Church. For example, each of them accepts each others' Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".''' This was an exciting period for Catholics and Protestants alike as moves were made to bring the separated churches back together.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The Anglican Church (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which their is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and fitly chosen, together with St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius, to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of pedophilia and ephebophilia have both been discovered in many churches across the world<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex.htm</ref>. Many instances of abuse occurred with little or no repercussion for priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors.

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://tcrnews2.com/VaticanCouncil2.html The Reasons for the Second Vatican Council]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/vonbalthasarfathers.html The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/predestination.html Ruminating on Laughter, Predestination, Mystery ]
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://tcrnews2.com/Marykerygma05.html Mary is not the Kerygma]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/RFK_daughter.html Kathleen Kennedy Townsend: Failing America's Faithful]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/ChristNietzscheIslam.html A Civilization Without the Influence of Jesus Christ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/Birds_Trojan.html Birds of a Feather and Trojan Horse Islam]
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site.
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/index.html Al Pellegrino Cattolico] Italian web site.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Christianity]]

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]

Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming

2007-07-11T23:49:16Z

USArule:

{{debate}}

All the talk of global Warming is absolutely mind numbing. Out of nowhere, this science is out to scare us all. The fact remains, the Global Warming scientists believe that humans must take the necessary steps to avoid a meltdown. It is ignorant to think humans can save the planet. God created this world, God alone can save this world from ourselves. Plus, do these scientists understand the ramifications of their sales pitch? The people of Earth would have to give up everything in order to succeed. By everything I mean combustion engines, factories, electricity, all meat, dairy, etc.

:That last comment is either supposed to be ironic, or from a very uninformed fundamentalist. I can't tell which.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 20:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The hypocrisy on this issue is overwhelming on both sides (Left and Right). Al Gore wants everyone to reduce their carbon footprint while his home uses order(s) of magnitude electricity than an average home - Why? '''BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT AND BUY CARBON ALLOWANCES''' (or some such rant). The right believes that they can do anything in their own backyard, as long as they can make money, while lecturing to everyone else as to how they may be polluting God's earth (or some such rant) (it gets worse). There have been changes in the average temperature - to conclude that ALL of this can be attributed to human activity is not clear. To ignore that what we may be seeing is a 1500 (?) year cycle is irresponsible. Weather models are complex and have many parameters that are difficult to estimate or calculate and so one can get any predictions one wants by tinkering. The left wants economic progress such that only the really rich can afford it, the right wants it for themselves but would like to deny the developing countries from developing (e.g. restricting the use of freon ("destroying the ozone layer") and discouraging the increased use of oil/gas (since the prices go up for everyone). So, is there really such a thing as Global warming? Perhaps. But after listening to Michael Crichton on CSPAN (?) about how even good journals can be biased in what they publish, I have NO idea what or who to believe. Too much noise, too much politics. OK, IF Al Gore leaves his HUGE mansion and moves to the middle of the desert and forsakes ALL modern conveniences including his car, electricity and whatever the heck he wears on his face and hair and such, and lives like a hermit, I will believe in Global Warming, what say you Mr. Gore? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]
: Are you addressing the messenger? or the message? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Both. I do not believe Mr. Gore, the science has been politicized, I wish I could remember the paper(s) cited by Michael Crichton and how he described his conversion from a believer of global warming to a skeptic (He is an M.D/scientist, in addition to being a successful novelist). That industrialization has wrought changes in our environment is clear, whether such changes are the direct/indirect cause for changes in the environment (whatever they may be) are dependent on models, which tend to be unreliable. I commented about Mr. Gore's own usage of electricity in his home (per news stories) since it exposes the fundamental hypocrisy in his position. And yes, I believe that mankind does have the wisdom to do the right thing, it is not clear what that has to be on the issue of "global warming". The Wall Street Journal has carried several articles that show the true costs of what Mr. Gore proposes and the cost to mankind - far different from what Mr. Gore would have us believe. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 19:10 (CDT), Mar 20, 2007
::: On the politicizing of global warming, I did a quick Google search for "global warming" and found a wealth of information. "Philip Cooney, an oil industry lobbyist now working for Exxon Mobil, conceded during a congressional hearing yesterday that while he was chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality he watered down reports on the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the planet's climate." [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21418971-2703,00.html] Or a few more [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11417-us-fudging-of-climate-science--details-revealed-.html] [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17704056/] [http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-muzzled/2007/03/20/1174153066947.html] [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate20mar20,1,1483477.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo] [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin] [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10429750]. I do consider Gore a bit of an alarmist and buying carbon allocations (a reasonable way for dealing with things globally - dealing with tons rather than pounds) can be dodgy , however that does not change the underlying findings of human influence on the make up of the atmosphere and the impact of that. While he has energized some people into doing more to fight global warming on a personal and local level, he has unfortunately also added to the politicalness of the debate. One of the bits that was not taken into account in the various climate models until more recently is global dimming [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/] [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15809.htm] [http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp] which has masked the effect of global warming - now with cleaner burring cars and trapping ash from smoke stacks, this is becoming more of an issue and accelerating global warming. Backing off of the politics and even most of the science - lets look at the worst case situations (however far from reality they may be) - whats the worst that can happen if global warming is right and we do nothing about it? What is the worst that can happen if global warming is wrong and we try to do something about the incorrect model? Which is the world you want to live in? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I am not, I will admit, familiar with ALL of the models - but I am aware work of a group that has consistently gone against the grain as it were - with the lead individual being on US national committees and all that - suffice it to say, he is often in the minority and sometimes shouted down - yet he is a man of integrity whose science and scientific method I do trust and understand ... (I will try and find some references/links and post them when I can) ... I agree that we ought to examine BOTH what if's - ... mostly, it is the global warming group that is yelling the loudest - What if they are wrong? What if we spend several hundred billion to trillions of dollars on "solutions" for nothing? What if all this is due to natural variations? Yes, rise in sea levels can destroy cities - significant climate change can wreak havoc - Some of the solutions being bandied about will prevent the development of many countries that are poor and wreak additional havoc on them - What are the rich countries prepared to do for them - IF they force them to accept restrictions on growth or other solutions that they do not consider palatable? And yes, what if we are indeed destroying the ecosystem and thereby affecting current and future generations ability to live/thrive? The global warming group has decided that ALL of the data is in, that there are NO uncertainties as to temperature measurements and predictions - and thus they claim WE MUST ACT NOW ... My position is - No, not yet - the data is not clear and acting to restrict CO2/methane emissions/whatever may not be necessary. I guess I find it troubling that reasonable groups tend to ignore the forest for the trees and decide to look at the forest when it suits them ... Just a few scant years ago, the word "nuclear" was anathema to most groups in the US - when many people were talking about it as a real solution to the energy crunch - Now, the word "nuclear" is used in the context of reducing the need to use coal/other hydrocarbons for generating energy ... Along the way, the scientific process gets muzzled to generate some specific conclusion to support some specific group - ... And yes, so much noise coming from Al Gore does give me reason to pause - since he did claim at one time that he invented the internet - or some such. "Everyone believes it" means nothing to me. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:25 (CDT), Mar 20, 2007
::::: There are two approaches to global warming, reducing the energy we use (switching to fluorescent lighting for example) and moving away from a hydrocarbon (coal, oil, gasoline) energy economy. Even if nothing else is done beyond these things, it would be a good thing. Consider that most of the oil is held in countries that are either hostile or at best unfriendly to the united states. An estimate is that by 2020, 83% of all of the remaining oil reserves in the world will be in the middle east [http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html]. By 2025, there will be no oil left in Africa. Another good read is about the Hubbert peak [http://hubbertpeak.com/] which suggests that by 2050, the world will run out of cheap oil. Thus, by mid century it isn't a matter of "how can we reduce carbon emissions" but rather "what do we do now that there is no oil?" Both gloabl warming and the Hubbert predictions [http://hubbertpeak.com/campbell/cen21.htm] [http://www.daviesand.com/Perspectives/Forest_Products/Oil_Reserves/] [http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/] have a reduction of carbon emissions - the question is is how we react to it now? With respect to nuclear, it is a partial solution - if we were to build one reactor a week we would have the infrastructure to survive the oil crash (however, this does not take into account that using that much uranium, we would hit uranium shortages well before oil shortages). So I ask you, would the effort of spending trillions of dollars to remove our dependence on oil and carbon emissions be a good thing? Off topic - on the matter of claim of Al Gore claiming to invent the internet, [http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp snopes] is a good read. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::The best argument to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels (oil) is where the oil is located (as you point out, and as Tom Friedman of the NYTimes has so often written about also - giving our enemies the money with which they are hurting us). I have not seen the calculations for uranium supplies - and how that would change if we were to shift to nuclear power. A key problem with such calculations (including that of oil) is that the analyses are "static" - even as we seem to be "running out of oil" - newer reserves are being discovered/developed - yes, we ARE running out, but the calculations do have a margin of error that I have some trouble with. About Gore/Internet - yea, he may have chosen his words poorly, but given my own feelings about Gore, I suppose I found it easier to believe that he DID claim what the stories say he claimed! - But fair enough, I'll refrain on THAT issue, from now on! [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:45 (CDT) 21 March 2007

The top comment reminds me of an oft told joke. A religious man is on the roof of a burning house. The fire company holds the trampolene and tells him to jump. He says: "No, God will save me." A helicopter and lowers a ladder to him and tells him to climb. He says: "God will save me." Then the house collapses, he dies and goes to heaven. He asks God why he didn't save him. God answers: "I sent the fire company and the helicopter. What more did you want?"

The Bible tells us that God gave man the tools to exploit the earth. It also tells what happens (the flood, the distruction of Judah, ..) when man lacks the wisdom to use those tools wisely. God gave us the brains to detect global warming in time to stop it. He gave us the means to stop it. The question is, do we have the wisdom?

::In response to the oft told joke, that does not ring with me. If he goes to heaven, he is saved. I understand the premise of thought behind the joke. However, to trust in mankind is foolish. Is there any problem too big that God could not solve? If we believe global warming caused by others, can by solved others, then we do not have the wisdom given to us. To worry is fruitless. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 03:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: To worry is fruitless, to act, devine. We are probably responsible for Global Warming, but whether we are responsible or not, it is within our ability to act. We can make the situation worse. We can make the situation better. Or we can ignore the situation. The situation is similar to sitting on an anthill. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Warming_Trends==
So your telling me mankind is the cause and solution? Then why are there correlating warming trends on Mars and Neptune? I guess there must be people creating global warming on those planets too? Or how about the previously warm periods in Earth history when mankind wasn't yet even a factor? Kinda destroys the myth doesn't it? How about you find out that the real reason is an attempt to control national economies. By putting emission caps on everything and everyone (who can't afford carbon credits) to control production, travel, as well as how much electricity or children you can have. I believe that is what we call totalitarianism. Also known as Globalism. When will people wake up and look behind the little curtain like the one in OZ?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 08:41, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

shane- look i think any one who denies global warming is pretty darn stupid, yes it is probably over done a little bit... but come on there is global warming. but ppl say " oh its just a warming period nd how can u be so sure its man kind" and other people say the world use to be tropical..well look those people are just ignorant to begin with does anybody know how they can figure out the temperature of the earth so long ago? i do...they look at rocks and ice...c a particular cold year will have jaged ice or rocks and less oxegen and carbon bubbles traped in it...a warmer year will be flatter smother and have more carbon and oxygen in it. ok now that we have that coverd...why was the earth so tropical long ago? i can answer that two...all the earths continents use to be connnected in a land mass called pangia rite alonmg the equator where it is particular warm and tropical. now for just a heating of the earth. heating of the earth naturaly takes 1000's of years. just like it took the earth 1000's of years to get out of the ice age...but in the last two centuries the earth has gone up in an average of four degress, "OH WOW ONLY FOUR DEGREES" some might say..well in 200 years thats quite a bit, and what has happend in the last 200 years? hmmm the industrial revolution which helped to prduce carbon dioxied... colonization of africa and south america wear they have exploited the forests for the lumber...gee why is that bad? well trees take in carbon dioxide and expell oxygen, but with so many gone there is alot more carbon dioxide reamining here on the earth. hmm this seems a bit onfusing, carbon dioxide... why is that bad, well lets start here, temperature is the measure of the average movment of a molecule, as more heat is added a molecule moves faster and the temperature goes higher, now carbon dioxide has an nice ability to absorb heat better than oxygen or nitrogen so as it absorbs alot more heat it vibrates causing the temeperature to rise, carbon itself is also a great insulator blocking heat from exscaping so the ehat reamains here at earth. are we all clear now? now back to why global warming is man made now as i have said before they can look at ice and rock to determein the temperature of the earth at certian period, well from that it is seen that temperature and carbon dioxide are linked when there is more co2 the temperature is higher. when there is less co2 the temperature is lower( for ppl who dont know science co2 is carbon dioxide) of now what ha sben going on in the last 200 years industrilization and cuttng down trees..so more co2 is being produced then ever before and now there are less trees to get rid of the carbon dioxid so hmmm? what have we learned? more co2 equals higher temp...we re producing more co2 then ever before...we have less trees to get rid of it? why cant ne 1 see that global warming is human made...we can controll it. ppl say it will harm the economy but look at germany a leading industrilized and exporting country and has harsh environmental laws. global warming is having drastic effects. the oceans are rising..and are expected to rise..think eventuly without help they may be no more cape cod or no more netherlands or no more southern lousiana. huricans come from tropical weather and in the last 200 years there have been on average more huricans occuring than ever before. without help england may freeze over, global warming is changing the gulf stream which helps heat england, because we cut down so many trees on average 40 species of animals and plants go extinct a day, some of these animals and plants have great mediacla abilities. we are killing the earth and our selves. why hasnt they us signd the koyoto plan? maybe because we support big buisness and big buisness is afraid that these laws will hurt them. we are the only leading exporting country not to sign it. and we r one of the worlds leading producers of carbon dioxide. can we not see that if we dont act now we will destroy the earth. because of global warming and deforestation we now have desertfication. the deserts are growing. global warming is man made the temperature has grown sence the industrial revolution...and its not rely that its gotten higher, but its the fact that it is changing so faslt that is dangerouse. species cant adapt quick enough and they die off...soon it will be humans who cant adapt quick enough, and we will die too. so look at logic forget religion and just help out, recycle paer and plastic, recycle cans you get money for those, conserve water, dont turn all your lights on in the house, dont drive for a walking distance, dobnt litter if you want your children to grow old and happy and not die due to our faults take action now-shane(shaneifer@yahoo.com)